I didn't mean to equate science and reason with machines. I meant to show how much reason and science proves feckless when it comes to formulating any kind of policy regarding technologies that will quickly surpass our own abilities as well as opening up the possibility to alter life on this planet more than ever before.

Reason has been used in processes which have fucked up numerous biospheres. At the same time, flights of fancy have lead to some important discoveries. Completely denying a voice to that which may appear, and might actually be, irrational, is to me, denying a human influence.

i honestly don't know what you mean in your first paragraph. i would argue that it is bad science and bad reason.

i'm not denying a voice to the irrational as much as i am proposing that it must be defendable, or must be something more than just a wild guess, adhered to without analysis - which is what faith is.

good reason can include the irrational, but it doesn't dispose entirely of analysis and judgement. this is the lakatos-feyerabend argument i have mentioned before on this site.

Except the world would also be a better place if people stopped listening to other messages in the bible, which still persist.

The bible doesn't offer anything that can't be offered via other mediums, yet it also offers a bunch of trash that you wouldn't get from those other mediums.

I do not dismiss other mediums. But you take from it what is good.

Personally I think that organized religion is the biggest money maker. I think the founder of Scientology said that if you wanna be rich go out and make lots of money, but if you wanna be filthy rich start your own religion.

Its exactly what he did. I am probally mis-quoting him. BUt that was the jist of it.

i honestly don't know what you mean in your first paragraph. i would argue that it is bad science and bad reason.

i'm not denying a voice to the irrational as much as i am proposing that it must be defendable, or must be something more than just a wild guess, adhered to without analysis - which is what faith is.

good reason can include the irrational, but it doesn't dispose entirely of analysis and judgement. this is the lakatos-feyerabend argument i have mentioned before on this site.

I agree that it is bad science and bad reason, and yet I fear it is what we are stuck with unless we can adapt to the ever quickening pace of technological change, there is less and less of a chance to consider what technological advances will mean through any kind of good and proper analysis. And I would argue that we have already shown ourselves ready to let technology chart it's own course, with very little analysis and judgment applied to the creation and use of atomic weapons, and the lack of judgment or analysis applied to building a nuclear arsenal beyond reason in terms of it's ability to destroy.

I also see the rise of technocrats in the name of progress through reason, and the results are often not pretty. The world is complex, and the more we discover the more complexity there is to try to deal with. As much as religion must be separate from the state, and not dictate how science is presented, I can easily see religion having a useful voice within a social sphere, particularly if it lies within the realm of guiding people through a personal approach to facing the unknowable. I think that people finding a means to be at peace with their place in the world could a positive step towards progress. Not on it's own of course, but as an option to build a sense of community for those who choose to do so.

But what seperates us from most animals is that we are born with a conscience. With a mind. Which is why science actually is there to help the weak.

Case in Point. Stem Cell research. Why are we not doing more of this.

Furthermore, there are all kinds of supposedly "weak" people contributing to the species' future survival.

For example, NASA may want to some day shoot down an asteroid to protect the planet. You need the brightest minds on the planet working on that shit, and some of the advances you make will be built off the work of other scientists who themselves might have otherwise been viewed as "weak" at one point.

We are not tribesmen roaming the African deserts. Yes, the "weak" could hold people back in nature during a different time period. But science would not command us to do what Benzo said, given our current situation. Survival is more about adaption, not the "fittest". And human concerns have evolved.

I would argue that you can define "weak" in so many subjective ways. Who is "weak" and can't contribute, given the difference in our current state of living? We are not tribesmen.

And Benzo should know this, given that he posted a video about an autistic boy who could potentially make contributions to human knowledge that increase our likelihood of survival as a species.

Most importantly, if Benzo is going to claim science would say that, he needs to explain how helping the weak hurts the species' future survival, given our current conditions.

I agree that it is bad science and bad reason, and yet I fear it is what we are stuck with unless we can adapt to the ever quickening pace of technological change, there is less and less of a chance to consider what technological advances will mean through any kind of good and proper analysis. And I would argue that we have already shown ourselves ready to let technology chart it's own course, with very little analysis and judgment applied to the creation and use of atomic weapons, and the lack of judgment or analysis applied to building a nuclear arsenal beyond reason in terms of it's ability to destroy.

I also see the rise of technocrats in the name of progress through reason, and the results are often not pretty. The world is complex, and the more we discover the more complexity there is to try to deal with. As much as religion must be separate from the state, and not dictate how science is presented, I can easily see religion having a useful voice within a social sphere, particularly if it lies within the realm of guiding people through a personal approach to facing the unknowable. I think that people finding a means to be at peace with their place in the world could a positive step towards progress. Not on it's own of course, but as an option to build a sense of community for those who choose to do so.

i'm not sure how technology is relevant to this discussion since what i was opposing is the way faith is, by definition, in contrast with good analysis. i'm still not sure what you are getting at by talking about technology here. bad analysis and bad reason are possible, but not reasons to abandon attempts to make them good instead of sticking with faith.

let's not get mixed up here. i have no opposition to some kind of inner spirituality to help people come to grips with the unknowable. but that doesn't mean that religion should have a voice in the social sphere and the way people interrelate. if we're talking about morals and social interaction, it simply can't be guided by myth and propaganda, and it must certainly be open for debate, with both sides accepting the possibility that they are simply wrong. tell me how faith can possibly fit into that?

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. You made the claim about science, so you should have evidence to back up what you're suggesting.

Anyways, I responded to someone else's post above, and in it I mention a few of my objections to your statement. We are not tribesmen. And there is a difference between adaption and "survival of the fittest"

Furthermore, there are all kinds of supposedly "weak" people contributing to the species' future survival.

For example, NASA may want to some day shoot down an asteroid to protect the planet. You need the brightest minds on the planet working on that shit, and some of the advances you make will be built off the work of other scientists who themselves might have otherwise been viewed as "weak" at one point.

We are not tribesmen roaming the African deserts. Yes, the "weak" could hold people back in nature during a different time period. But science would not command us to do what Benzo said in our current situation. Survival is more about adaption, not the "fittest". And human concerns have evolved.

I would argue that you can define "weak" in so many subjective ways. Who is "weak" and can't contribute, given the difference in our current state of living? We are not tribesmen.

And Benzo should know this, given that he posted a video about an autistic boy who could potentially make contributions to human knowledge that increase our likelihood of survival as a species.

Most importantly, if Benzo is going to claim science would say that, he needs to explain how helping the weak hurts the species' future survival, given our current conditions.

No that's not what I said, I suggested ( to prove a point not my person feelings) that the human race would be better off culling the those leaching on the system. That is a rational thought. I was simply stating that compassion is tough to prove with an equation.

Yes weak is subjective, those leaching the system is not. Nowhere did i state it has anything to do with physical prowess or brain power.

I am also not stating that helping the "weak" hurts a species future survival, I believe compassion helps society, it just can't be measured.

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. You made the claim about science, so you should have evidence to back up what you're suggesting.

Anyways, I responded to someone else's post above, and in it I mention a few of my objections to your statement. We are not tribesmen. And there is a difference between adaption and "survival of the fittest"

I would also like to point out that nowhere did I state "survival of the fittest". You are putting words in my mouth.,....or on my keyboard as it were.

The protection of our less fortunate is not some scientific math equation, quite the opposite. Science would tell us to leave the weak behind you ensure our survival, yet I know you believe the exact opposite? Why is that?

Suggesting that science would tell us to "leave the weak behind so you ensure our survival" sounds a lot like "survival of the fittest", Benzo.

And this is exactly why I asked you to elaborate the first time, yet you declined.

No that's not what I said, I suggested ( to prove a point not my person feelings) that the human race would be better off culling the those leaching on the system. That is a rational thought. I was simply stating that compassion is tough to prove with an equation.

Yes weak is subjective, those leaching the system is not. Nowhere did i state it has anything to do with physical prowess or brain power.

I am also not stating that helping the "weak" hurts a species future survival, I believe compassion helps society, it just can't be measured.

that is a rational thought (perhaps) but by no means the end of any good debate or analysis. just a single idea open to be examined in a free exchange of ideas.

i'm not sure how technology is relevant to this discussion since what i was opposing is the way faith is, by definition, in contrast with good analysis. i'm still not sure what you are getting at by talking about technology here. bad analysis and bad reason are possible, but not reasons to abandon attempts to make them good instead of sticking with faith.

let's not get mixed up here. i have no opposition to some kind of inner spirituality to help people come to grips with the unknowable. but that doesn't mean that religion should have a voice in the social sphere and the way people interrelate. if we're talking about morals and social interaction, it simply can't be guided by myth and propaganda, and it must certainly be open for debate, with both sides accepting the possibility that they are simply wrong. tell me how faith can possibly fit into that?

The faith I grew up with placed a great deal of focus on inherent limits. Was that just myth and propaganda? And I have similar concerns to Benzo in terms of the limits of reason, and the ways in which arguments can be made within increasingly complex systems that measure up very poorly. I think it is most prevalent with regards to how technology effects us and life in general, as well as within policy-making that gets handled by those educated as technocrats without ever stepping outside of abstractions. I have a real problem with seeing reason as the only means, or even primary means toward progress, as important as it is. At least not before seeing it as being limited.

The faith I grew up with placed a great deal of focus on inherent limits. Was that just myth and propaganda? And I have similar concerns to Benzo in terms of the limits of reason, and the ways in which arguments can be made within increasingly complex systems that measure up very poorly. I think it is most prevalent with regards to how technology effects us and life in general, as well as within policy-making that gets handled by those educated as technocrats without ever stepping outside of abstractions. I have a real problem with seeing reason as the only means, or even primary means toward progress, as important as it is. At least not before seeing it as being limited.

just to clarify, and to put this in the context of what i was discussing, does this mean you favour faith, or the absence of debate?